Another, another, other new points system

[www.autosport.com]

With the increased amount of teams, points could be awarded from 25 points for the race winner to 1 for 10th place.

No mention of medals.. yet.

No complaints with more points scoring positions. It alters little on the sporting side, and obviously there are huge financial rewards for even getting a single point in a season, so to give those tiny teams a little more chance can't be a bad thing. That chance is still nearly zero of course, so it's hardly an easy way in... if they can't break into the top 8, they're unlikely to break into the top 10, given the current reliability of cars...

If Bernie really believes that the sport would benefit from a medals system (his theory being that drivers would push more for the win than they do currently... :\) then simply making the difference between 1st and 2nd larger is the way to do it. Currently, and with this new proposal, then gap between 1st and 2nd, and 2nd and 3rd is the same. Perhaps a bit more leverage towards the win.

Points to the top ten is a good idea, but 25-20-15 etc. is a very, very poor solution IMHO.

What's wrong with 15-12-10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1?

---

K*bots UK, specialist providers of 'fun science' Curriculum Enhancement days for Primary and Secondary schools in Britain.
Please find us on [en.wikipedia.org] for more information.

no, it HAS to be the old and nice 9-6-4-3-2-1. And we had that in the 70s when there was moreless 26 cars in every race

Frantic Schreef:
-------------------------------------------------------
> no, it HAS to be the old and nice 9-6-4-3-2-1. And
> we had that in the 70s when there was moreless 26
> cars in every race


But there is more money in the sport now, a team now scoring points is a disaster for them for getting sponsors and all, that's why it's hard to only hand the top 6 points in times like these.

Frantic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> no, it HAS to be the old and nice 9-6-4-3-2-1. And
> we had that in the 70s when there was moreless 26
> cars in every race

Problem with that is, these days the cars have near-bulletproof reliability, whereas in the 70s it was invariably bad. So you'd have the same 3 quickest teams locking out the points positions in 90% of the races.

---

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/10/2009 11:25PM by EC83.

True, but then 2/3 of the field retired. Now we have races with only one or two retirements.

I can see why they want the top ten to score points. 8/20 is about the same as 10/26, so it's only fair. I don't like the ridicoulous amounts of points though. As Locke points out, there is nothing wrong with 15-12-etc.

I think that the best would be 20-14-10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1. Emphasis on the win, and the 1st place gets an even number of points. I don't like the way they proposed.

Yep, it's a mixed bag - great to have more points-paying positions, but they have made a bit of a mess of the number of points they've allocated to the higher positions.
Still, they've got time to fine-tune that before the 2010 season starts. As long as they stay the hell away from medals, I won't mind particularly.

---

I don't think this will really have much of an impact if it does go ahead, apart from for the smaller teams.

If you look at the F1Fanatic article: [www.f1fanatic.co.uk], you can see that its almost the same ratio of points, just more of them.

---

X (@ed24f1)

Yes but there is a Drivers' Championship, and drivers will be disproportionately penalised for their CAR's reliability issues if they're challenging for a Championship.

---

K*bots UK, specialist providers of 'fun science' Curriculum Enhancement days for Primary and Secondary schools in Britain.
Please find us on [en.wikipedia.org] for more information.